Improvements to Turn based combat

[Lirpakkaa]

@CowboyMovement

Yeah, it seems to me like people saying TB is too slow don't realise that during the AI turn you're still playing. You're looking at what the AI's doing and thinking how to react. If you're expecting a game where all combat comes down to see enemy > target enemy > kill enemy, then you might be disappointed

Of course. It is often a problem though, when their moves don't really have much relevance to what you're doing - often in JA or FO I won't really care what the enemy does because the battle is easy enough and/or the AI so predictable I know already what to do next turn anyway. And well, it is more pleasant to think about what to do now when it is already your turn, I do believe that enemy turns should be as short as is possible while still displaying the info on what they're doing.

Like if the moving speed of the combat descriptions in Wasteland was fixed to be slowish, I don't see anybody defending that.

[Rzarkrusz Rowa]

I'm playing Wasteland now and I have noticed that Wasteland has a system different from games like JA2 and ToEE that are discussed in this thread as examples of combat systems that WL2 should follow.

Namely it uses WEGO Turn-Based mode and in scale it's a hybrid between skirmish and tactical. Map is divided into fields which can contain a whole team (which is more similar to tactical games) and team can be moved as whole. But at the same time actions are chosen for individual soldiers and the team can be divided into smaller teams. Enemies are attacked as teams - for example 4 guys stacked on one field can be all damaged with one burst of automatic fire and they can be targeted as a group.

I think it would be interesting if that system could be kept and made more sophisticated. Two improvements that come to my mind:

1. Cover and suppression - locations could have cover rating and maybe a limit of how many people find cover. Characters could be partially in cover or completely covered. In later case they'd be unable to shoot but very hard to hit from afar. Suppression could force characters into complete cover which would allow a part of a team to close on them and finish them off in close combat or with grenades.

2. Targeting - in Wasteland, when there were different types of entities on one field, attacks could be targeted against only one type. So, if all enemies of that type get killed, some attacks don't get executed.
A field could be picked as a target and one specific entity on that field would be picked as a primary target. If target would get killed, another entity of the same type would be picked as a target and if there isn't any, a different entity on that field would be chosen.

[Hiver]

For those that dont read the OP or numerous subsequent clarifications:

There is a thread here to discuss the nature of Wasteland's combat system, which can branch out into a RTwP discussion if you so like. Please keep this thread to discussing turn-based combat systems for WL2.

And although i chose some posts to quote and snip them somewhat to make it all a bit shorter i suggest other members to go through them individually and read them all.

Jagged Alliance took about 4 years to make and JA 2 was an interative progression over the course of several releases and expansions. Making a bog standard old school RPG in 18 months from nothing seems kind of impossible already. Trying to emulate JA on top of that is not going to happen.

We are hoping for games such as JA to be a good source of inspiration and that some good aspects of them can be integrated into Wasteland2 combat.
The fact that it has been evolving for so long makes it a plus in this sense.

I can't count the number of times I wished there was some kind of cover or defensive bonus system in the original fallout.

I agree. Not that I whished for a cover system in Fallout, but that if cleverly implemented and supported by other features, it could really benefit the combat.

I surely did. Especially in the tough random encounters when i was just starting. Sometimes there was a tree or a pile of rocks that would save me from reloading a save thats been done hours earlier.
or it would if it was possible to use it for anything else but to completely hide for a turn or two.
In the cities not so much because the of way architecture was designed.

Important thing here is to make sure there are no "cover spots" artificially added to the world. just let me shoot from a house, hide behind the well, or atleast go prone behind a stone or a porch, crouch behind a barrel.

And add mechanic that allows the bullets to pass through the wood
And have enemies use it all too.

--Option to skip turn of a character once or for the rest of the turn.

--Faster enemy A.I turns - The computer will crunch numbers as you make choices in combat. So the A.I will not 'freeze' when it's your turn, but dynamically begin to act on your actions in the background, as you make them in real time. Here's a post where I go into more detail on how enemy A.I can be sped up by npc's having action presets, acton sets and stackable actions too. Essentially npc's will have A.I 'combat behavior' that is more executed rather than calculated on the fly to various variables, which is more cpu intensive. This is more realistic too since behavior to gunshots and getting shot at varies little from person to person.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=216&start=10

These i can definitely support.
The rest of suggestions goes too much into "make it faster" in the ways that dont primarily contribute to making a deeper and more engaging system and i dont think we need to do that.

Having a better flowing animations, making sure neutrals dont bog down the moment with their shuffling (Den and its junkies ... -although they were funny in a sarcastic way) and having auto resolve or original Wasteland system presentation instead of it, with a reasonable animation speed slider will be more than enough.
In that sense.

First of all, excuse me for any grammar mistakes please, not a native English speaker. I'm popping up just to add my two cents to this topic, it won't take long.

No probs there. Your spelling is good enough and im not native english speaker either.

While playing the original Wasteland, some enhanced defensive possibilities have crossed my mind. You all remember "evade" option, right? For those who don't, there was an option during the combat turn to try to evade an enemy fire. Evading character spent his turn without any other action but with highly increased chance to avoid any kind of harm.
Now, this is my point. Instead of evading only, I'm thinking about two other defensive choices:

1.) Distracting attack

Some brave, healthy, well armoured ranger will decide to obtain precious time for his buddies in the heat of combat. During his turn, he will jump out of cover against the enemy, screaming like a mad man, shooting wildly.

Good things:
- Sequence (or speed) of this brave soldier should be increased, probably even doubled during his turn, due to the adrenaline rush.
- Confused enemies will focus all their firepower at this uncovered kamikaze during their next turn. Other rangers should safely regroup, reload, provide first aid for those who needs it or even attack an enemy without any fear of being hit during this turn.
- Also all the splash/burst shots will be aimed at the brave kamikaze, so other members of a friendly team doesn't receive any damage from those area-effects in the next turn.
(Eventually, there should be some chance for a battle-hardened enemies to recognize false threat, so they will decide to ignore this crazy attacker completely. Check based on an opponent's weapon skill comes to mind. Some players will be pissed off, I'm sure, but what's better than defeating smart or skilled enemy, hehe.)

Bad thing:
- Kamikaze will suffer with massive penalty to his attack and defensive rolls during this turn. Eventually, he will be completely inactive during the next turn too.

2.) Covering fire

Almost the same as before. In short: instead of a crazy attack mentioned before, one ranger will pop up out of his cover during his turn just to spray some bullets at enemy group, very carefully. There will be some differences in comparison to the regular attack, though:

Good things:
- Aiming carefully, he will most likely hit the target. Decent attack roll bonus for this turn.
- Due to this surprising attack, any of enemies who are hit by should suffer with some kind of penalty for next turn. (Small attack roll penalty, for instance.)

Bad things:
- Small defense roll penalty for one turn to the brave ranger.

Both actions should be available only for those who are armed with an automatic weapon or so, add anything else what you want. That's all for now. If it's unreadable or it sounds like a nonsense, feel free to delete my post anytime!

All great suggestions and i hope they will be taken into consideration.

Integrated into diversity of individual rangers and enemies in terms of individual skills and abilities these mechanics would increase the gameplay depth two-three fold at the least.

I have the feeling that a lot of the posters worried about turn-based combat being "too slow" don't have a lot of experience concerning TB games, and are basing their opinion on one or two titles - and I can totally understand that someone who played Fallout 1 and liberated Adytum would have this kind of concern. Others seem to take a game with RT or RTwP combat, like BG2, imagine it with turns, and conclude "man, that would be slow and tedious as all hell". This is also true.

One of the strongest influences of Fallout 1&2 systems had on me is constantly imagining and seeing where they could be improved. As did the whole games in every aspect of them.

To me Fallout games are not something we should just copy, but something that shows the way.
And that includes all the funny bugs and good mechanics they had in every aspect.

Its, similar to original Wasteland from what i learn here - a foundation to be built upon.

Even though this thread is about "mechanics", more often than not what makes combat enjoyable in any given game is encounter design.

The point I'm trying to make, is that different combatmechanics work well with different combat encounters.

Of course. Thats why hand placed and carefully designed encounters with diverse enemies are an essential part.
as well as chalenging difficult areas that you cannot go into anytime you want.
Here we are in luck because last interviews Brian did he agrees with this type of design and it seems inXile will pursue this game logic rather than something all of us passionately hate.

[undecaf]

I can't count the number of times I wished there was some kind of cover or defensive bonus system in the original fallout.

I agree. Not that I whished for a cover system in Fallout, but that if cleverly implemented and supported by other features, it could really benefit the combat.

I surely did. Especially in the tough random encounters when i was just starting. Sometimes there was a tree or a pile of rocks that would save me from reloading a save thats been done hours earlier.
or it would if it was possible to use it for anything else but to completely hide for a turn or two.
In the cities not so much because the of way architecture was designed.

Important thing here is to make sure there are no "cover spots" artificially added to the world. just let me shoot from a house, hide behind the well, or atleast go prone behind a stone or a porch, crouch behind a barrel.

And add mechanic that allows the bullets to pass through the wood
And have enemies use it all too.

Yes, I definitely agree that these these kinds of things would've definitely made the combat more appealing in Fallout - and should definitely be something to be considered for Wasteland 2.

The combat in Fallout was just arranged so, that I rarely felt the need to crouch behind a cover. The interruption mechanics, I and some others have suggested earlier, were the ones I mostly missed there. And perhaps morale (as a separate effect from, but still affected by, HP).

I was going to suggest assigning a "squad leader" at character creation and rallying abilities, but I don't know if it'd make the combat for this particular game a bit too complex for what it strives for (more of an RPG than a combat simulation covering a lot of bases). Dunno, though.

[dmazz]

Fallout Tactic's primary combat differences to Fallout combat were three things. Real time turn based action, a 'pause' feature with the ability to go into traditional turn based combat and the ability to go prone and crouch, which introduced advanced cover into combat. So it gained more tactical depth, faster combat speed and player choice on how fast combat was. So really my points bringing up all these aspects sits well with the information given to us by Fargo so far. My primary concern remains combat speed and mechanisms by which to control combat speed dynamically, while maintaing as much tactical depth as possible. That quote posted by Fargo just says "combat in an RPG needs to be deep and rewarding." which is obvious. Notice he says 'RPG', combat is a big part of an RPG but not the dominant part.

Game time would be 80% exploration and story and only 20% combat. I think 30% is as high as you can take it in a RPG game. I'm not sure what the percentage of combat to exploration and story were in Baldurs's Gate and Fallout 1-2. My guess is 20% combat and 80% exploration. JA2 and Silent Storm have around about 80-95% combat (if we include pre and post combat inventory management) and only 5-20% story and exploration.

If JA2/Silent Storm combat can be sped up by 70-80%, Wasteland 2 will be able to have a combat system equally as deep if not deeper than JA2/Silent Storm. (JA2 had suppression, Silent Storm had fully destructible environments). 70-80% is just a guess figure, but 30 minutes of combat will be reduced to 6 minutes and sounds about right.

That seems to me the most important turn based system improvement. Combat speed. I'm not trying to steer the thread towards this concern, I'm just saying that's my dominant concern. And future posts of mine will be directed towards that concern, so people shouldn't be alarmed or annoyed by it as it's a reasonable and helpful concern to have.

[The_Scorpion]

... Wasteland 2 will be able to have a combat system equally as deep if not deeper than JA2/Silent Storm.

yeah that's what we would hope for. Meanwhile in the real world, we hope for a combat system that comes close to emulating Ja2 at least in some ways.

[udm]

My ideas:

Given how we're going back to TB, there should definitely be dynamic physics and ballistics simulation incorporated to allow for a greater diversity in strategies. I agree with other posters that, given how far technology has progressed since 1988, inXile can certainly look forward to implementing gameplay mechanisms that weren't feasible back then (note: not inclusive of player-housing and romance).

Some of it's been mentioned before in other threads, but I think it's worth mentioning again. Here's a rough list of things that could happen with dynamic physics and ballistics simulation:

- Trees should be fellable and lighter or smaller objects like barrels, tables, chairs etc should be affected by bullets. I'd sure like to see snipers in trees, and you having the choice of taking them out by destroying the tree.

- The ability for the player to move objects like tables, chairs and maybe bulkier equipment to create temporary cover. The enemy could, of course, take out the player's cover with an explosive, or simply flush the player out with a grenade.

- Walls should have gaping holes when blasted with a LAW. If an enemy's behind that wall at that time, he may or may not take damage, but he'll be knocked back by the blast (missing a few turns). And if an enemy hides behind a wooden fence, the wooden fence can: a) have bullets passing through the wooden boards and b) be destroyed eventually if enough damage is sustained.

- Rubble can be blown up into fragments of pebbles rather than being an "invisible wall" game mechanic that so many games insist on shoving down players' throats.

- Multilevel buildings can collapse eventually when the support weakens. I'm not talking about Red Faction Guerrilla's type of mass destruction done to such a hilarious effect, but even a simple animation would suffice, killing all inhabitants within. Of course this will require enough explosives to take down the building, and so it's not that viable an option unless you're a fanatical hoarder of explosives. So it's possible to only be used in the most desperate of situations (all party members down except for that explosive hoarder).

- Line of sight in tall grass and trees will affect vision of both the enemy (who cannot see you) and you (who can see the enemy, but vision affected by the weeds in front of you)

- Wind strength affects accuracy, especially in longer ranges. A guy who previously had a 98% chance of hitting the enemy now only has 83%.

All this effectively gets rid of popamole for many circumstances.

Having a better flowing animations, making sure neutrals dont bog down the moment with their shuffling (Den and its junkies ... -although they were funny in a sarcastic way) and having auto resolve or original Wasteland system presentation instead of it, with a reasonable animation speed slider will be more than enough.
In that sense.

Phase-based can overcome this. Darkwind: War on Wheels does this in such a way that there's a Movement Phase, where everyone moves simultaneously, and then a Firing Phase, where the initiatives of the attacks are based off the gunners' Speed attribute. If Wasteland 2 uses a system similar to this, I'd totally jizz.

There are a lot of suggestions that ask for a sped-up JA2, but as what Rzarkrusz Rowa observed, Wasteland is phase-based, and combat is quite fast (unless you get jumped on by 10 lizards). IMO phase-based should be the way to go for Wasteland 2, if only because firstly, that's what Wasteland 1 used, and secondly, it does the same thing that turn-based does, but in a very elegant manner.

[Lirpakkaa]

When emulating JA2, there's something I'd definitely like altered - make cover and lying down less important, or rather less effective. It may seem like a weird thing to want at first, but there's basically 2 reasons.


Firstly it gives the game a more dynamic, action movie-like feel. You run around and blow stuff up, instead of both sides sniping away at each other as they would in a more realistic combat. It would seem to me this style would also make the combat resolve a bit faster.

And secondly it might make the game too easy, since the AI just cannot properly use cover, giving the player a huge advantage - just consider how people in JA2 beat the Drassen counterattack, where the enemy has multiple times more men than you and probably better armed too. They beat it because the enemy acts so sheepishly and can't figure out how to properly kill the well-covered mercs.
In a Wasteland-like game that'd kinda ruin the progression for me, imagine if you could just go and beat the Guardian Citadel at the start of the game in WL if you were good enough at making the AI fall on its knees? Of course player tactical skill should matter at least as much as character stats, but there's a limit to how far you should be able to go with just that.


Hard cover like walls, is fine by me though, it's the bushes and fences that let you lie behind them and snipe away in relative safety that would be iffy I think.

There's basically 2 ways to change this I can think of atm, first is to just make the to-hit minuses to targets in cover be smaller obviously (or give comparable maluses to hitting targets that are moving fast? Though those targets wouldn't be very accurate themselves while running). Another is to include more AoE weapons that will hit you just as well regardless, also weapons to bust down walls mid-combat (which there were in JA2 too, but only very very late-game in good numbers).

Thoughts?

I like UDMs idea of separate movement and shooting phases, btw.

[Hiver]

Just to make one thing clear. I already read a few of your posts about speed and RT combat, dmazz.
Next one you write about it here will be flagged as "off topic".

Well, the last will too since it can only serve to flame someone or steer the conversation into that direction which is something this thread is not about, regardless of personal opinions that dont agree.

I rather would not go into specific since we have diametrically opposing opinions about everything, from FT to what makes TB better to pretty much everything concerning this theme.
And if we argue we wont be able to convince each other into anything.

There is i think two other threads about those issues so kindly remove such opinions into them. If you dont mind.
As far as im concerned all that needs to be said about improving "speed of the TB combat system" has already been said in this thread.

-edited so as not to seem threatening or taking over moderator role-

[Mort2]

Take cover, partly destructible environments I'd like to be able to brake a window or cut a fence and climb trough it, various kinds of terrain, multiple level maps, normal pathfiniding and AI tha does more than just rush and shoot.

EDIT: also a GOOD inforamtive UI.

[KentAble]

Stance changes would be great to have as long as the attendant bonus/penalties are there. Plus it would also allow running and or sprinting (stamina stat?)

Multi-turn actions would also be good. Priming grenades and throwing, heavy arty, field medicine application all these might require more than 1 turn to accomplish. Which would require either action points or some thought on whether you should be standing in the open doing such things while a firefight is going on.

Destructible terrain/building ala Silent Storm would also be nice to have. Opens up a whole lotta options when instead of opening that one door to the building you can blast a hole through a side wall/floor/ceiling. You could also technically demolish the entire structure were you so inclined and carried sufficient explosives.

Ready actions/attacks of opportunity/overwatch: whatever you want to call it, if you're waiting around the corner with your gun up/grenade out/finger on the detonator, you should get the drop on the mook walking blind into your field of view (in an FPS this would be called camping). Of course this works the other way around and it could be a TPK if you play like it you're on team Rambo.

[The_Scorpion]

- Trees should be fellable and lighter or smaller objects like barrels, tables, chairs etc should be affected by bullets. I'd sure like to see snipers in trees, and you having the choice of taking them out by destroying the tree.

- The ability for the player to move objects like tables, chairs and maybe bulkier equipment to create temporary cover. The enemy could, of course, take out the player's cover with an explosive, or simply flush the player out with a grenade.

- Walls should have gaping holes when blasted with a LAW. If an enemy's behind that wall at that time, he may or may not take damage, but he'll be knocked back by the blast (missing a few turns). And if an enemy hides behind a wooden fence, the wooden fence can: a) have bullets passing through the wooden boards and b) be destroyed eventually if enough damage is sustained.

- Rubble can be blown up into fragments of pebbles rather than being an "invisible wall" game mechanic that so many games insist on shoving down players' throats.

- Line of sight in tall grass and trees will affect vision of both the enemy (who cannot see you) and you (who can see the enemy, but vision affected by the weeds in front of you)
All this effectively gets rid of popamole for many circumstances.

all of it doable with the Ja2 engine, i've been researching this lately.


oh, except for the sniper in the tree. while you can (and i have done so) design snipers in trees, having them fall down by destroying the tree, i can't do it yet.


essential for these features is a tileset engine that has a variable physical object assigned to the graphic and the possibility to change both graphic as well as physical object, through various means of player interaction (Explosives, bullets/ projectiles/ interaction through player's hands or use of object etc.)
These objects need to have various properties to make them function correctly, such as the material they're made of, their HP's, their shape etc.

[udm]

Yep I think when it comes to combat, borrowing a few pages from JA2 would be the way to go. You can have so many tactical options in there, and it does so many things right that other 3D games today that try to simulate the tactical aspect of modern warfare do wrong. From sneaking through tall grass at night to all kinds of movement stances, it is the pinnacle of TB combat. Other than piling on so many tactical features, it also removed the annoying "enemies in sector = your mercs must walk one by one every turn" problem from JA1, so all in all it was just really comfortable and intuitive to play. Just wish it had used a modified version of Fallout's called shot system though. Then it would have been perfect.

That being said, I'd be overwhelmed with joy if WL2 uses JA2's combat system and merges it with phase-based combat, though how one intends to balance the skills and various phases remains to be seen, and there is the possibility it'll be a lot more complex to do so than conventional TB.

-edited so that it's clear I do prefer phase-based over turn-based, but I also consider JA2 to be the game that uses its TB nature to its fullest potential-

[kraze]

Rip off JA2.

It worked well for both Fallout Tactics (yes you can bash it for leaving out other important Fallout elements and I will agree) and Silent Storm.

Really JA2 combat will turn Wasteland 2 into candy.

What's the point in having complex non-combat RPG mechanics if a player will have to suffer through the combat ("oh when will this horror end?!") instead of enjoying every turn of it.

JA2 has everything. Stances, Action Points, LOS, hearing, different weapon upgrades giving bonuses and penalties, interrupts to give a readied soldier a fighting chance - no "I ran into your view, ran up to you, blasted you away with a knife, ran away".
But most of all - everything was fair for both you and enemies. Many TB RPGs suffer from enemies seeing you through everything - and for a game based around guns it's especially a big issue.

If you want the game to be good you need to keep up with what other games achieved. And JA2 combat fits PA setting like no other.

Stances, LOS, weapon upgrades with +/-, interrupts should be an absolute minimum.

[void1984]

I really enjoy playing 7.62 High Calibre, but please remember that this game is mainly focused on adventure and combat is just an addition to it (although an important one), not the other way around.

Just let the combat not be so bad as in Arcanum, where it was a strong repulse for me.

[Hiver]

Dont worry void, none of can influence inXile in such a way and we certainly wont be able to make them budge from what they decided as basics for their game. Baring only those features they will offer for discussion or suggestions.

The biggest purpose of this thread is to show how great Tb combat can be and offer real examples and suggestions out of which everyone will benefit.

Nobody wants a full copy of fallout tactics or JA. We all know this game will not be based only on combat.
We just want to well,..."help" in suggesting it should be great, instead of just passable, mediocre or even bad.

Stances, LOS, weapon upgrades with +/-, interrupts should be an absolute minimum.

+ using the environment, terrain elevation (whether natural or architectural), night and day lighting conditions having some effect on shooting and sneaking, cover system that does not give absolute invulnerability which is also dependant on type of material (without any additional cover spots or object implanted anywhere of course), and gameplay, enemy types and skill diversity that will promote team work and tactics. And damn good Ai too.

XD

I doubt we can expect trees to be easily destructible because realistically you do need quite a bit of explosives to bring one down (hand grenade wont work on most) and it is necessary to deliver that explosive to the tree and properly position it which may be difficult with a sniper shooting at you. I dont expect we will have that much explosive in the game for that to be a reasonably often used tactic. Or so much different types of Bazookas and other RPGs.

(same goes for destructible buildings i guess. Would be nice but hard to expect)

Now...sticky grenades... that could be tossed closer to the branches, or smoke grenades plus using other usual tactics as attacking with your own sniper and trying to move some rangers so to encircle it and spray bursts on it from the back and other directions... i can see that.

[Inca]

What about fire and smoke, I'd love to have those implemented, especially if you could start a fire with tracers:)

Also would be cool if you would suffer damage/diminishing to the hearing if you fire inside of small closed space

It would be cool if you loose some sight if you fire short barreled rifles in complete darkness

In fact if you walk into adark building from the sunlit outside environment your vision site has to be sverely limited for a period of time, but not if you have tactical light.

Also it would be cool if some environmental clues idicated the presence of enemy, like shaking of the branches, spooked birds, smell (if you are downwind)

[paultakeda]

What about fire and smoke, I'd love to have those implemented, especially if you could start a fire with tracers:)

Also would be cool if you would suffer damage/diminishing to the hearing if you fire inside of small closed space

It would be cool if you loose some sight if you fire short barreled rifles in complete darkness

In fact if you walk into adark building from the sunlit outside environment your vision site has to be sverely limited for a period of time, but not if you have tactical light.

Also it would be cool if some environmental clues idicated the presence of enemy, like shaking of the branches, spooked birds, smell (if you are downwind)

Even though a lot of Wasteland involves combat, I don't want instances of combat to take up a lot of time. This is getting way too complex for a world sandbox RPG.

[kraze]

I really enjoy playing 7.62 High Calibre, but please remember that this game is mainly focused on adventure and combat is just an addition to it (although an important one), not the other way around.

Why do people keep saying it isn't the other way around. You spend most of the game time in a combat environment - that means either fighting or avoiding it by combat's rules.

Every single RPG is mostly combat. And note how only those that done everything right became classics.

I certainly don't say 'sacrifice non-combat stuff for combat' because that didn't work for ToEE.
But at the same time sacrificing combat is a bad thing.

JA2 is given as an example because it does everything it has so well. And it isn't just fights. There's some economics and quests too that have non-linearity as well. There are NPCs that are not just barter machines like in TES games.

Dont worry void, none of can influence inXile in such a way and we certainly wont be able to make them budge from what they decided as basics for their game. Baring only those features they will offer for discussion or suggestions.

Something tells me they haven't decided anything yet. This bit of your thinking is hazardous.
Look at what is going on with Stoic's project now. They are doing a Final Fantasy Tactics-style combat. Because people don't care (or completely lap it up). You can't go lower than FFT when it comes to combat. And they call their game a strategy.

It isn't too late to make WL2 a good game.

[Hiver]

What about fire and smoke, I'd love to have those implemented, especially if you could start a fire with tracers:)

Also would be cool if you would suffer damage/diminishing to the hearing if you fire inside of small closed space

It would be cool if you loose some sight if you fire short barreled rifles in complete darkness

In fact if you walk into a dark building from the sunlit outside environment your vision site has to be sverely limited for a period of time, but not if you have tactical light.

Also it would be cool if some environmental clues indicated the presence of enemy, like shaking of the branches, spooked birds, smell (if you are downwind)

Absolutely not. This is not some CoD realistic physics combat simulator.
Even if you could approximate all of this into just some skills-rules input-output in the background and give it to player by text... No, no way.

Maybe you didnt mean it in that way, but it just looks like something completely complex and with no clear benefit. Especially if youre imagining it all done in some high quality graphics with effects and whatnot.

Why do people keep saying it isn't the other way around. You spend most of the game time in a combat environment - that means either fighting or avoiding it by combat's rules.

Every single RPG is mostly combat. And note how only those that done everything right became classics.

Ah you know... people would like that the part of the game would enjoy more doesnt get cut because some other part so they tend to ..ah... embellish the truth sometimes.

I certainly never saw an rpg with 30% combat.

Something tells me they haven't decided anything yet. This bit of your thinking is hazardous.
Look at what is going on with Stoic's project now. They are doing a Final Fantasy Tactics-style combat. Because people don't care (or completely lap it up). You can't go lower than FFT when it comes to combat. And they call their game a strategy.

It isn't too late to make WL2 a good game.

Nah, its just the way these things work. They have been working for a year or bit more on the game. They pretty much know the outline they want to strike for.
Some things maybe can be swayed a bit, some things will be offered for suggestions and bigger fan input but generally there wont be any design for committee at al.
Otherwise really bad things could happen.

As far as combat goes i think we have a chance to influence them there... still. But only because they do want a turn based system. If we wanted to turn this into a FP shooter we could be writing posts, threatening and yelling until web goes down - it wouldnt make any difference.

Now Brian already said they look at Fallout games (gee its nice to be in an environment where i dont have to explain which Fallout games) and Fallout Tactics. He said that they saw Tactics being mentioned on the forums and that he gets people appreciating the depth of combat even if they are not satisfied with the rest of Fallout rpg missing.

So... thats what the team is looking at in this sense.
Plus im pretty sure they are reading this thread specifically, if that makes you feel better.